Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Re: Truecrypt 4.1

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Truecrypt 4.1

 
 
Borked Pseudo Mailed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2005
nemo_outis wrote:

> Ari Silverstein <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:
>>
>>>> In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
>>>> secures data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure
>>>> and they DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're
>>>> negligent. Again, no matter what they're charging for the product.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What law school graduated YOU?
>>>
>>> The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no
>>> warranty of fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license
>>> agreement that had to be accepted before the software would install
>>> itself on the users' computers.
>>>
>>> God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
>>> nonsense like you just did.

>>
>> You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
>> disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.

>
>
> Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff. Except for
> wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that would have the
> remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.


ROTFL!

And your whole "True Crypt fixed a problem for no reason at all" argument
is anything but your big mouth running exactly HOW nemo?

>
> So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite some
> cases - ****, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to update free
> software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for Burkina Faso.


I suggest you look up and study the Uniform Computer Information
Transaction Act. See if you can pull your head out of your little self
impressed cloud long enough to find the passages on free software and how
it's NOT exempt from liability for defects. This might save you from
looking so much like a clueless luzer in the future.

No charge for the LART. Sorry I didn't bring you up to speed a bit sooner.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nemo_outis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2005
Borked Pseudo Mailed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) d.net:

> And your whole "True Crypt fixed a problem for no reason at all"
> argument is anything but your big mouth running exactly HOW nemo?



What a mendacious little prick you are! I have never said:

1) that Truecrypt "fixed" anything. No, I said the authors issued an
enhanced version, implementing LRW ahead of virtually all other
commercial and non-commercial encryption programs. Some "fix"!

2) that Truecrypt 4.1 was issued for "no reason at all." No, I said
rather that the authors had *no legal obligation* to issue Truecrypt 4.1.

But I understand your desperation and frustration. Having had all your
arguments thoroughly demolished by me, you must now resort to
unadulterated bullshit without even a pretence of rationality.



>> So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite
>> some cases - ****, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to
>> update free software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for
>> Burkina Faso.

>
> I suggest you look up and study the Uniform Computer Information
> Transaction Act. See if you can pull your head out of your little self
> impressed cloud long enough to find the passages on free software and
> how it's NOT exempt from liability for defects. This might save you
> from looking so much like a clueless luzer in the future.
>
> No charge for the LART. Sorry I didn't bring you up to speed a bit
> sooner.




Again, what a mendacious little prick you are! And an incompetent one
too! This is the best you can do?

Your much-hyped "Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act" is not a
federal act or anything of the kind. It is NOT part of the UCC! No, it
is merely a *proposed* model act for *states* to enact *if they so
choose.* It has been much criticised as badly conceived and badly
drafted. It has had minimal impact since it was first proposed in 1999,
having been adopted only by Virginia and Maryland (those hotbeds of
software development). IOW it has largely been a dead-end failure! You
know - like you!

I'm not going to crawl through its 120 pages or so of dense legalese.
It's your cite - you point to what you allege are the applicable parts.
And if they're *applicable,* cite some cases where they were actually
*applied.* IOW put up or shut up, Borky!

So, if you think it somehow establishes liability for authors of free
software, I invite you once again to cite any successful successful suits
brought under it for failure to update a free program. Must be lots of
them, right? (unless you wish to say that there have been no cases
because free software never has bugs). So cite a few cases, Borky!

How would you like to weasel away from my challenge, dimwit? Or,
perhaps, you will once more just duck it without comment?

Regards,













 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Winged
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-30-2005
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> nemo_outis wrote:
>
>
>>Ari Silverstein <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:15:29 GMT, Jeremy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>In the case of TrueCrypt they're offering software that allegedly
>>>>>secures data. If there's some flaw that makes this software insecure
>>>>>and they DON'T make an acceptable effort to fix that flaw they're
>>>>>negligent. Again, no matter what they're charging for the product.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What law school graduated YOU?
>>>>
>>>>The software was provided FREE and was offered "AS-IS," with no
>>>>warranty of fitness. The terms were clearly spelled out in the license
>>>>agreement that had to be accepted before the software would install
>>>>itself on the users' computers.
>>>>
>>>>God, I can't stand it when "Ten-Cent-Lawyers" go around spouting off
>>>>nonsense like you just did.
>>>
>>>You can disclaim anything you want, in a USA Federal Court, you're
>>>disclaimer can be valued at the toilet paper level.

>>
>>
>>Can I have some of whatever you're on? It must be good stuff. Except for
>>wild speculation, you have not pointed to anything that would have the
>>remotest chance of standing up a a basis of claim.

>
>
> ROTFL!
>
> And your whole "True Crypt fixed a problem for no reason at all" argument
> is anything but your big mouth running exactly HOW nemo?
>
>
>>So, let me extend to you the same invitation I made to Borky: cite some
>>cases - ****, any cases! - of successful suits for failing to update free
>>software. Any jurisdiction - I'll even settle for Burkina Faso.

>
>
> I suggest you look up and study the Uniform Computer Information
> Transaction Act. See if you can pull your head out of your little self
> impressed cloud long enough to find the passages on free software and how
> it's NOT exempt from liability for defects. This might save you from
> looking so much like a clueless luzer in the future.
>
> No charge for the LART. Sorry I didn't bring you up to speed a bit sooner.
>

Actually this Act applies to commercial transactions or transactions
where trade occurs. Since the software was free, no trade occurs so no
provision of this act applies...see section 302.

I concur with Nemo that in my last 25 years of exp I fail to recollect
any case where any freeware vendor had been held liable in any court
except for virus and malware writers.

This act which I had been blissfully ignorant of, basically takes all
rights that a consumer might have and gives them to the vendor. It is
evil in its definition and does not expand consumer rights and is not a
consumers friend.
This proposed act does not appear to have passed in tact by any state
legislature I could find in spite of high level lobby by industry in
many states. Perhaps I did not look far enough, but I did not find
where this proposed act was ratified in any state. I did see where they
were trying to sneak it in for federal consideration, but it is a snake
oil citation that does not apply. But the act itself was interesting
reading.

If I were a software writer selling software...I would want this law as
it expands my protections.

Must be that crack thing using this as a citation.

Winged
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Truecrypt 4.1 Borked Pseudo Mailed Computer Security 11 11-30-2005 06:29 AM
Re: Truecrypt 4.1 nemo_outis Computer Security 8 11-30-2005 04:58 AM
Re: Truecrypt 4.1 nemo_outis Computer Security 0 11-26-2005 06:01 AM
Re: Truecrypt 4 Released! Ari Silversteinn Computer Security 1 11-02-2005 06:48 PM
Truecrypt 3.0 has been released nemo outis Computer Security 4 12-11-2004 05:58 PM



Advertisments